[NOTE: The next few posts were merged here from the "Rorschach" thread. --"Curiosity Inc."]

Real Life Rorschach wrote:

Hes not a troll. Be afraid liberals, be very afraid. Haha I laugh at your comment (whatever the politically correct term is). Just proves how accepting you are to this pathetic meme that has been going on for the next few years. I bet you cried when Sean Penn gaves his oscar acceptance speech because thats all we need an "elegant" man in the whitehouse. Hell I bet you liberals would trade elegancy for character any day.

The problem with your statement is that Rorschach doesn't have character either. Why does he idolize Truman while wanting to stop Veidt? They basically did the same thing, killed a lot of people to stop a full out war. Also, he seeks to punish criminals, yet he himself operates outside the law, thus making him a criminal. If he had real standards and respect for what is right he would turn himself in. He is actually a very selfish character with little character.

Why does he idolize Truman while wanting to stop Veidt? They basically did the same thing, killed a lot of people to stop a full out war.

That's vastly oversimplified. Truman killed approximately 100,000 of the enemy, with the intent of forcing the Japanese government to end its war on America, one that had already cost many hundreds of thousands of lives (both American and Japanese). Even Japanese civilians were supporting the war effort against the U.S.

Ozy killed a comparable number of innocents to further a hoax. No duplicity in any sort of war, other than the fact that they lived in a society which had fallen far down the slippery slope of devolution.

That's vastly oversimplified. Truman killed approximately 100,000 of the enemy, with the intent of forcing the Japanese government to end its war on America, one that had already cost many hundreds of thousands of lives (both American and Japanese). Even Japanese civilians were supporting the war effort against the U.S.

Ozy killed a comparable number of innocents to further a hoax. No duplicity in any sort of war, other than the fact that they lived in a society which had fallen far down the slippery slope of devolution.

Actually the reality is somewhat different, and although I don't want to derail this fascinating exploration of a troll's psyche, I do want to make the point about Truman and Veidt basically doing exactly the same thing.

1) Neither were elected to their position. Truman became president after FDR died, and did not have a popular mandate.

2) Both killed enormous numbers of people in the name of "saving lives", whether you agree with that conclusion or not.

3) Both took personal responsibility (albeit with Veidt only to his former colleagues), Truman more publically so.

In Truman's case, the Japanese government had already started suing for peace with the Russians BEFORE the first device was used on Hiroshima. I believe Truman himself was guided by the military in his decision, and wasn't aware of this fact, believing that he was actually saving American and Japanese lives by the use of the bomb.

The second bomb was far less defensible in terms of its use, and frankly the only REAL reason I can see that it was dropped was because the military wanted to see if it worked.

Since the American government accepted the Japanese terms of surrender, effectively unconditional apart from keeping the emperor, which exactly the terms offered to Russia BEFORE Hiroshima, there can be no justification for Nagasaki.

The real reason why the first bomb was dropped was to force Japan to surrender to the US instead of Russia, who was already being labelled as the next enemy by the Americans, to have the justification for American military prescence in Japan and in that sphere of operations. Nagasaki was dropped to see if it worked, and to show the Russians it wasn't just a one-off weapon that the Americans possessed.

Truman and the American's carpet bombing of Tokyo with incendiaries had alreay wreaked a huge death toll on the japanese civilian population, and for the most part by the time Hiroshima occured, it was only a small proportion of the military and government that wanted to fight on. The Japanese civilian population had already been pretty much bombed and starved into submission already.

Both Truman and Veidt killed innocents, there is no getting away from that. The only issue for me is whether or not their justification was strong enough to justify their actions. In Truman's case, if you accept he was given the stark choice by the military, drop the bomb, or face even greater losses on both side if America has to invade, then he made the right choice. In Veidt's case, if his plan succeeded and brought US and USSR back from the brink of mutally assured annihilation, then he too made the right choice.

In fact, I would agree that morally and ethically it is impossible to agree with one action and not the other. One of the reasons why Rorschach's philosophy is shown to be morally bankrupt in the GN.

_________________(\__/) (='.'=) (")_(")

Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste......

^ Good post. The only thing I'd add is that one can argue that, emotionally, Veidt's actions were even worse for our heroes because he destroyed their city and everything/everyone they knew there. In the larger philosophical scheme, though, that's small potatoes.

To Darkweaver (because I don't want this to turn into an encyclopedic entry by quoting everything):

While neither was elected, Truman was the leader of the U.S. and in charge of decision-making for the war, during a 'hot' war. Veidt had absolutely no authority to enact his plan; he was basically a rogue agent, and the cold war was mostly an underground thing.

Your second point is absolutely correct.

The only reason Veidt took personal responsibility was to brag about his accomplishment. I could discern no regret over his killings at all. According to the histories that I've read, Truman agonized both before and after the bombings over the loss of life, and stepped up to the plate. To me, that's a huge difference.

As for the timing and motivations behind Nagasaki, Japan had still not accepted the terms of the surrender by the Americans at that point. The Japanese didn't officially surrender until six days after Nagasaki. As I understand it, Hirohito and the rest of the Japanese government were still outwardly defiant after Hiroshima. (Also, after Pearl Harbor, I see no reason whatsoever that American interests would believe a word the Japanese said anyway.)

While your theory on the motivation for dropping the bombs makes for good conspiracy-theorist fodder, I'd like to see some real evidence to back it up. Otherwise, I place it on the same level as the argument that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen and that he left ships in port so that America would have a casus belli (as if bombing an American naval installation wasn't enough), or that the American government staged the destruction of part of the Pentagon in order to claim a terrorist war in much more recent times.

Btw, the nuclear warheads were a two-off; all the fissible material the U.S. had available was used in the two A-bombs. It seems to me it would be a really poor decision militarily to use all of their arsenal solely for the purpose of convincing the Russians of something which they would readily discover as untrue from their own intelligence apparati.

Yes, both killed innocents. But there's a difference between collateral damage that happens in the middle of wartime over enemy territory and the calculated slaughter of no one but innocents. There is a vast moral and ethical gulf between the two situations, and I can quite easily see someone accepting Truman's actions while rejecting Veidt's. As a matter of fact, I do. I've always seen Veidt as a villain, while I deem Truman as more of a victim of circumstance.

I think you might be a little backwards there.While I am sure Truman thought over the casualty figures but after the million bodybags needed for the invasion of the main islands and the knowledge that at Okinawa and Iwo Jima there were almost no prisoners taken and many of the villagers killed themselves rather than be taken prisoner, and the order for all allied POWS to be murdered at the first landings he made the choice. Heck Truman has stated that he slept well that night.Also Veidt states that he felt every single life die in Manhattan, so Id assume that he has some regret...but probably the same Lex Luthor had in Superman I after nuking the San Andreas fault, a "meh, whatever" kind of feeling.

Also regarding the second bomb drop. There were still deliberations in the Japanese high command to continue fighting to the bloody end. Also deterring the Russians was a big thing. Japan was a launching board for Korea and Vietnam, and no matter your thoughts on those wars, they did prevent the whole of Southeast Asia from falling under communist control. Truman's great weakness though was not rattling his sabre when he has the ace in the hole "the atom bomb" and ensuring free elections for poland, east germany, rumania, and all other areas OVERRAN by soviet advances. He betrayed millions of people who fought tooth and nail against the nazis just to be given them over to an equal terror, the soviets. THe cold war would have been alot shorter if Russia was just Russia and didnt have plenty of satalite puppet states.

_________________"I wish all the liberals of the Earth had one throat....and I had my hands about it." -Rorschach, 2009"Why are so few of us, in this forum, left active, healthy, and without personality disorders? " -Rorschach, 2009

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them."

It's funny how Hirohito, in his radio message to the people of Japan, claimed that it was the A-bombs which brought about his decision to surrender, yet three days later in a similar message to the Japanese soldiers and sailors he didn't say a word about the A-bombs and stressed the Russian threat as the reason for his surrender. Neither of these addresses (nor Hirohito's decision to surrender) occurred until after both bombings. According to the best information available, he made his decision sometime between the bombing of Nagasaki on August 9 and the day he notified the royal family, on August 12.

As for the Cold War, I doubt that Truman could have foreseen that. He (and the military) were, however, very interested in preventing the Russians from committing landgrabs, thus the race to Berlin.

An aside to Darkweaver: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were specifically selected in part because they had not been bombed, in order to accurately gauge the effects of the A-bombs.

I think the Luthor-Veidt comparison is a very apt one; both are extremely elitist and are willing to pay any price to further their plans. And I really don't buy Veidt's assertion that he 'felt every death' after all I've seen of his actions and motivations. Did he 'feel' the deaths of the people who had worked on the giant squid that he blew up in order to preserve his secret?

To quote V from another of Moore's classics, "I came for what you did, not what you intended to do."

In the end we are not concerned about motive. We judge actions. And whilst Truman may have dropped his bombs during a war, and Veidt during a so-called time of peace, the threat of huge numbers of additional lives lost if they didn't take the action they did is still the same.

Regardless of all other factors, if what they did saved lives, their actions are correct, if their actions didn't, then they weren't. With Truman it debateable as to whether or not lives were saved, but we'll assume for arguments sake that he did. There is no question that Veidt brought the US and USSR back from the brink of nuclear annihilation. He now plans to help humanity towards a utopia.

Frankly the ONLY way to differentiate between the two is ascribing motive, and in BOTH cases the stated aim was to limit bloodshed.......

_________________(\__/) (='.'=) (")_(")

Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste......

To quote V from another of Moore's classics, "I came for what you did, not what you intended to do."

In the end we are not concerned about motive. We judge actions. And whilst Truman may have dropped his bombs during a war, and Veidt during a so-called time of peace, the threat of huge numbers of additional lives lost if they didn't take the action they did is still the same.

Regardless of all other factors, if what they did saved lives, their actions are correct, if their actions didn't, then they weren't. With Truman it debateable as to whether or not lives were saved, but we'll assume for arguments sake that he did. There is no question that Veidt brought the US and USSR back from the brink of nuclear annihilation. He now plans to help humanity towards a utopia.

Frankly the ONLY way to differentiate between the two is ascribing motive, and in BOTH cases the stated aim was to limit bloodshed.......

That's just way too oversimplified, I think.

You can't just dismiss the fact that Truman was acting, not on his own, but as the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces during a time of war. He held that position, although not directly elected to it, through completely legal means as defined in the consitution. He also did not act in complete secrecy. Once the first bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima there was an announcement. No attempt to lay the blame for this action at the feet of some third party was made. Veidt had no similar claim to authority for his actions. It was also completely instrumental to his plan that he not be discovered as its perpetrator.

You can't dismiss the fact that Truman's actions take place during a War. Consider a more conventional notion of self defense. If someone is attacking you with deadly force it's generally considered acceptable to defend yourself with deadly force. As long as the threat is immediate most cultures consider reacting with deadly force to be within the bounds of moral behavior. However, if those threats aren't immediate then that justification tends to fly out the window. Let's say there's someone out there who has it in for you. He's been harrassing you and making threats on your life. You happen to know the guy well enough to know he's serious and perfectly capable of pulling off his threat. So, what do you do? Let's say you proactively decide to kill this guy before he kills you. Is that still "self defense"? That's the difference that we're dealing with here a case of an action taken during overt hostilities and outright war and a proactive action attempting to prevent a war. Two very different situations.

So, no, we're not just talking about "motivations" here. We're talking about the notion of who we, as a society, entrust to make vastly important decisions that impact the lives of millions of people vs one man acting purely on his own initiative making similar decisions. We're also talking about the immediacy of the threat being responded to and the reaction that that might allow.

But how is that power legitimate to the people of Japan? It's their lives that Truman destroyed. If you want to take the angle that he had a responsibility to his people, didn't society give Veidt an implicit responsibility by buying his products and holding such a high view of him? With that amount of societal power, given to him by the people, he saw himself as the one that had to act.

Regarding secrecy, his plan ONLY works if it's secretive. The atomic bomb works whether or not people know about it. Honestly, it's the same principle of protection - fear of destruction - except there's no perpetrator that can die out or disappear.

But how is that power legitimate to the people of Japan? It's their lives that Truman destroyed. If you want to take the angle that he had a responsibility to his people, didn't society give Veidt an implicit responsibility by buying his products and holding such a high view of him? With that amount of societal power, given to him by the people, he saw himself as the one that had to act.

It's legitimate in the sense that their leaders (the Japanese) declared war on the U.S. by bombing Pearl Harbor. By proxy they engaged themselves in the war. Ultimately, I don't think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagisaki are justified - particularly when you consider the fact that it was civilians being targeted. I just believe that you can make a much better case for Truman and his actions being moral than you can for Veidt.

And, no, I don't think being a successful capitalist grants one that kind of authority. Should Bill Gates presume to the office of the Presidency soley on the strength of his ability to sell operating systems?

I don't think so.

Quote:

Regarding secrecy, his plan ONLY works if it's secretive. The atomic bomb works whether or not people know about it. Honestly, it's the same principle of protection - fear of destruction - except there's no perpetrator that can die out or disappear.

If anything that's a flaw in his plan. I think he had other potentially less secret and deadly options. Here's something I posted in the Adrian Veidt Thread.

Zeke wrote:

OK, I've managed to make my way through most of this thread and I thought I'd toss in my own 2 cents on the morality of Adrian's plan.

One of the points of contention I've noticed recurring in this thread is the notion that Adrian's plan was the only plan that could be effective in averting nuclear armageddon. Setting aside for a moment arguments centering around whether nuclear armageddon was actually inevitable and the level of certainty that Adrian could be justified in having regarding his plan's effectiveness I submit, for your approval, an alternate plan.

There is, in the novel, one obvious alternative. Who else would have had the power and ability to avert a nuclear holocaust if he had chosen to act? Who else could have justified his actions with (actual) certainty in his knowledge of the future? Who could have done it without killing a single person?

Jon could have.

Now, the obvious objection is that Jon's alienation from humanity and completely fatalistic outlook would prevent him from taking any action to interfere. True enough. However, we do know that Jon can be manipulated. Adrian, in fact, manipulates him to further exacerbate his alienation and triggers his trip to Mars. Adrian devises an extremely elaborate and devious plan that takes decades to unfold involving the manipulation of many of Jon's friends and associates into taking jobs with subsidiary companies all for the sake of giving them cancer...etc. The point being that Adrian was capable of devising a plan to manipulate Jon. Why not, instead, devise a plan that draws Jon back to his humanity? That shows him the worth and value of human life and that it's ultimately worth saving? If anyone is capable of devising such a plan it would the "world's smartest man".

Perhaps it was easier to manipulate Jon towards alienation than reconciliation but surely the extra effort would have been worth it. After all Jon would have been able to end the stalemate and completely remove the threat of nuclear annihilation. He could simply convert all the fissionable material on the planet to lead (in secret) and then, once accomplished, make an announcement to the world that nuclear war was no longer an option on the table - enforced multilateral disarmament. That would have been at least as effective as Adrian's plan without the necessity of killing 3 million innocent people. And, even if you don't accept that particular scenario as effective then surely there is some other scenario that would be effective. If you have faith in Adrian's capacity to devise a successful plan without Jon's cooperation then surely with Jon engaged, on his side and his vast power at his disposal it would be even easier to devise some alternate plan.

Was it even possible to persuade Jon that saving humanity was worth the effort? Of course it was - Laurie managed to do it and inadvertently at that. Surely Adrian could have devised a plot, perhaps even engaging Laurie through intermediaries, to ultimately persuade Jon to get involved.

Could Adrian have known it was possible to engage Jon's value of humanity? I would say that he did. Adrian's plan even anticipates this eventuality. Why else were the tachyon generators necessary? Jon was, according to Adrian's plan, already off planet and completely indifferent to the fate of humanity. If Adrian didn't anticipate the strong possibility of Jon's sympathies being engaged then there would have been no compelling reason to block Jon's ability to see his future, discover his plan and interfere with it.

Hey guys, here's a discussion I've always wanted to be completely free roam to open thinkers who love Watchmen and big buffs in history. Anyway, it's always been my understanding that the choices and sacrifices Ozzymandiaz made were in my opinion no more different than the principles President Truman made when letting the A-Bombs off in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course there's gonna be a few who'll agree with me on this and those who'll think I'm off my rocker on this like Rorschach's train of thinking; it's all in the matter of making a socratic discussion. LOL But I'll let you guys talk this out for yourselves. So here's the first questions I'll start off with: if you guys believe the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nessassary, do you believe Veidt's intentions were any more different than his? And when Rorchach stated he supported Truman's decision, why is he the only one that's on Ozzy's side?

In fact, I would agree that morally and ethically it is impossible to agree with one action and not the other. One of the reasons why Rorschach's philosophy is shown to be morally bankrupt in the GN.[/color]

I think, rather, that it illustrates Rorschach's application of his philosophy is inconsistent. The philosophy itself is not morally bankrupt and can be applied consistently and a rational person can arrive at the conclusion that what Truman did was immoral and that what Veidt did was immoral.

Walter was unable to apply his adult philosophy to his childhood fantasies of his father being some sort of advisor to Truman. He needed to believe Truman was a good man.

Good men do not drop bombs on civilian populations killing women and children. Not for any reason. Neither Truman nor Veidt were good men. The primary difference is that the people Veidt murdered only existed in a comic book.

This thread, however, is a good place to point out something that Zack changed from the comic for the better. In the comic, Rorschach's death splash looks like the famous blood spatter and if we imagine ourselves moving our POV up over where the vivarium was, we can see that it would resemble Blake's badge. Instead, Zack gave us the Hiroshima lovers, reminding us of all of Rorschach's flaws... his inability to see Veidt and Truman in the same light... and his inability to relate to women or have a relationship... all wrapped up in that symmetrical image.

Okay, so, I'm writing a research essay on deontological Kantian ethics and its appearance in Watchmen(more appropriately, Watchmen's criticism of it). I feel like it's primarily directed at Kant due not only to Rorschach's views on sexuality being quite similar to Kant's, but also due to Kant's take on Crime and Punishment, which doesn't necessarily logically fit with the rest of his overall philosophy but is pretty much identical to Rorschach's.

Anyways, I have a question for you all(Actually, I have thousands, but this one is key). What's with Rorschach and President Truman? Effectively, dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was exactly what Veidt did. Yes, you could argue that the element of secrecy involved in Veidt's actions is the difference, but I don't think that's Rorschach's primary objection. He says "Back to owlship. Back to America. Evil must be punished. People must be told." He believes not that this truth must be revealed because it is a deception, but because it is the only way to ensure that Veidt is punished for his crimes, which fits in perfectly with Kant's views on crime and punishment(A criminal must be punished simply because he is a criminal. To try to punish someone to make society better, or to not punish someone to make society better is treating someone as a means to your own end, which betrays their rights to be an end in and of themselves...Read Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals).

Right, so, Rorchach's refusing to compromise about Veidt is perfectly Kantian. However, nothing about Truman dropping the bomb is Kantian. It was a compromise. It's worth noting here that I feel that Rorschach is a vessel through which Watchmen criticizes Kantian/deontological absolutism, and this manifests itself in multiple forms. Rorschach's friendship with Dan, and ultimately, Rorschach's lying to Dan("Tell Dreiberg I need to check my maildrop. He believes me.") being one of the biggest. However, I feel that Rorschach's respect for Truman's dropping the bomb cannot, ultimately, be reconciled with Rorschach's overall philosophy. So, let's examine how it presents itself.

The first time we see it is on the opening page, when Rorschach writes in his journal "They could have followed in the footsteps of my father, or President Truman." This is key because it establishes that his respect is still strong even after Rorschach has come to his full actualization(I.E. Post-little girl being kidnapped and killed). However, the big ticket item is the letter Rorschach wrote as a child, found after chapter 6. I feel STRONGLY that the fact that the elaboration on this respect is given by a child is pretty important. So, Rorschach says "I like President Truman the way my Dad would have wanted me to. He dropped the atom bomb on Japan and saved millions of lives because if he hadn't of, then there would of been lot more war than there was and more people would of been killed. I think it was a good thing to drop the atom bomb on Japan." Rorschach's reasoning here is simple, as is the writing. This, in my eyes, is not a criticism of the logic behind it(Watchmen is NOT saying "This is what a silly child thinks"), rather I think that it is simply "The good behind dropping the bomb is so self evident that even a child can understand it." Again, pointing out that a fully mature Rorschach at the time of the novel still feels respect for Truman.

Right now, my answer for this is that the novel is saying that the deontological, compromise free is blind to the results that Machiavellian consequentialist ethics such as the justification for dropping the bomb produces. Going to the opposite extreme of Machiavelli leads to rejecting things that simply should not be rejected. Of course, the novel also criticizes the other extreme(Veidt's consequentialism), but this is my answer, right now, for Truman and Rorschach. Anyone have any suggestions/thoughts?

Right now, my answer for this is that the novel is saying that the deontological, compromise free is blind to the results that Machiavellian consequentialist ethics such as the justification for dropping the bomb produces. Going to the opposite extreme of Machiavelli leads to rejecting things that simply should not be rejected. Of course, the novel also criticizes the other extreme(Veidt's consequentialism), but this is my answer, right now, for Truman and Rorschach. Anyone have any suggestions/thoughts?

Well, Kantian ethics certainly allow for self defense. Given that we were at war with the Japanese and that we were attacked first by them it could be argued that Truman's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were purely acts of self-presevation.

Right now, my answer for this is that the novel is saying that the deontological, compromise free is blind to the results that Machiavellian consequentialist ethics such as the justification for dropping the bomb produces. Going to the opposite extreme of Machiavelli leads to rejecting things that simply should not be rejected. Of course, the novel also criticizes the other extreme(Veidt's consequentialism), but this is my answer, right now, for Truman and Rorschach. Anyone have any suggestions/thoughts?

Well, Kantian ethics certainly allow for self defense. Given that we were at war with the Japanese and that we were attacked first by them it could be argued that Truman's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were purely acts of self-presevation.

Well, if that's the case, then what's with Ror's respect for him?

While Kantian ethics certainly allows for self-defense, I wouldn't call Hiroshima self-defense, and I definitely wouldn't have called Nagasaki self-defense. If I were to, then I would have to call what Veidt did self-defense as well. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were about preventing future wars and finishing the current one. The Japanese had been effectively defeated by that point, outside of their own island, and their threat to America had passed.

Looks like we're trying to make cases for Truman and Veidt on our worldview, and not necessarily Rorschach's.

But that aside, Empiire pointed out a great aspect of Rorschach's character: his respect for the Comedian. How many rapists has Rorschach put in hospital/jail/both? But when it's the Comedian, it's a "moral lapse", "speculation", "allegations". He makes no attempt to even investigate the truth. The Comedian had been doing sketchy things for the government for years, including possibly offing JFK. But in Rorschach's thinking, he's still a patriot who died for his country.

Coming to Veidt, did anyone notice Rorschach's first words about him? "I have business elsewhere, with a better class of person". All through his talk with Veidt, he stands with his hat off. He doesn't do that even in Dr.Manhattan's presence. It suggests that despite Veidt's liberal leanings, Rorschach had respect for him (maybe as a capitalist icon?) At least he obviously didn't start off detesting Veidt.

Rorschach didn't think much of the bomb because he wasn't born when it happened. He had no emotional ties to Japan, or its people. He believed his dad idolized Truman, and that was enough to justify his unquestioning allegiance. With the carnage that Veidt wrought, it was different. This was his city, and it was destroyed by a person of the class he respected. That was the evil. That was Rorschach's agony: that his moral high ground had been completely razed by Veidt's act.